HC Deb 14 February 1939 vol 343 cc1671-90

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Furness.]

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

I desire to raise a matter which, I think, is of considerable public interest, namely, the position of the Chief Divisional Food Officer for London and the Home Counties, Major-General Sir Reginald Ford. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome this opportunity of explaining to the House and to the country exactly the position of this General, who, although he seems only to have a part-time post in peace time, may, in the event of war, be called upon to regulate and distribute the food supplies of London, and perhaps a much wider area.

On Tuesday of last week I inquired of the right hon. Gentleman the domicile of this General, and I was told that he is at present living in Brussels. In reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) the right hon. Gentleman assured us that the appointment was not an ornamental one, and by that I understand that the appoint is one of some importance. To-day the right hon. Gentleman informed the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that he receives a retaining fee of 250 guineas per annum for whatever services he may be doing either in Brussels or in London during peace time. The 250 guineas per annum, I take it, is exclusive of expenses. I presume that even if he were in London there would be certain expenses to which he would be entitled. Although the right hon. Gentleman referred to this figure of 250 guineas per annum as a small retaining fee, and perhaps it is to one in the position of the General, nevertheless, it is a fairly substantial sum of money judging by the lack of duties which this General has to perform.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman what exactly are the duties of General Sir Reginald Ford in peace time, because on that will turn a great deal of our criticism? But even if his duties are not substantial, as an officer in a position in charge of a staff, or, even if he is not in charge of a staff, at any rate responsible for plans being prepared by a staff of some 130. I presume that his position is one of some importance. I presume also that in war time this General would have a full-time appointment. If I am correct in that, I am bound to ask what are the qualifications of this officer? I understand that he is an officer who has had considerable experience in the Army—I believe in the Army Service Corps. He is also of the age of 70. According to the Government we need not expect an early war, and if that is true, this General will be of some far advanced age by the time war breaks out, when he will be called upon to give his full activities to the appointment. Whatever the abilities and qualifications of this General—and I am not going to dispute that he may have some considerable abilities, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would not have appointed such a man to the position—the fact remains that the officer himself does not consider his duties of sufficient importance to warrant his living in this country. In response to some questions which have been put to him by Press reporters, which I will read presently to the House, he seems to think that this is not really a job of work which he has to do, but merely a leisured occupation to which he can attend as he thinks fit. Although the 250 guineas may not be sufficient for a job of this kind, nevertheless, he should give some fair services in return for the money which is being paid to him.

As to his qualifications the right hon. Gentleman told the House last week that he had had considerable experience and that that was one of the reasons why he had been appointed. It is interesting to know that whatever his experience might have been in days gone by, it is some 18 years since he left the Army, and it is quite possible, in fact, I believe I am right in saying, that since the General has left the Army, transport services and food supplies—food supplies for London in war time—may have assumed proportions quite different from the experiences which the General gained in the last War.

I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. Is the nature of this appointment and is the residence of this officer likely to inspire public confidence? Whatever justification the right hon. Gentleman may give for the General living temporarily in Belgium, the fact remains that he has a very important title, he has 250 guineas a year, and he will have a post which will be of considerable importance in war time. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in these circumstances, what effect does he think the residence of Sir Reginald Ford in Belgium at a time like this is going to have on the public? I will quote some of the General's own words, because they are rather interesting. I quote from the "Evening Standard" of Saturday, 21st January, when evidently some curious reporter telephoned the General and asked what he thought of his appointment and of conducting his job 250 miles away from London. This is what the General is reported to have said: Heavens, man, I can get to London quicker than I could if I lived in Scotland. I have done it four times already since I came here a few weeks ago. I do not know how many appearances this General has put in at his office since his appointment, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us the details? All I've got to do is hop in an airplane, and in less than three hours I'm sitting in my office in Westminster.

Mr. Thurtle

What about foggy weather?

Mr. Bellenger

Possibly the General has not taken the chances of foggy weather into account: When I'm wanted in London I catch the 10 a.m. airplane at Brussels and am in my office at 12.30 p.m. As a traveller I have always loved Belgium, so I have come over here for several months to see if I like the country enough to settle down. When I read that last sentence I got a considerable shock. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to me last week to say that the General was only living in Brussels temporarily for private reasons. It would, perhaps, be indelicate to inquire into the reasons but, nevertheless, this last sentence rather indicates that he has it in his mind not to reside temporarily in Brussels but to find a permanent home there, presumably in peace or war—it does not matter which. I should like the House to consider the effect of such widely-quoted statements on public opinion in this country, particularly in London and the Home Counties, for whose food supplies this General will be responsible in war time. We are being asked by the Government to volunteer our services, not for 250 guineas but for nothing, in the national interest and to give our services on the spot. What would the House or the public think if we allowed our responsible people, even such people as air-raid wardens or fire brigade officers, to say nothing of members of the Cabinet, to conduct the administration of their offices from a place like Brussels, even though it is possible to "hop into an aeroplane" and be here in two and a-half hours?

I suggest that the attitude that the General is taking up is an insult to public opinion. It is an affront to all those well-meaning people who have the interests of their country at heart, and who are responding to the Government's call and giving their leisure time at no cost to the country, when they hear that their food controller in war time is now living in Brussels. Moreover, the method of this appointment and the attitude of this General lend colour to the Government's critics on their own side and on this in their allegation, which has often been made here and outside, that the Government are not really proceeding with their plans for an emergency, which we all know may be imminent, with that expedition and that responsibility that they ought to be doing in face of the difficulties that are confronting the country.

I shall be very interested to hear the explanation of the strange circumstances that surround this General, one of our departmental controllers, who lives abroad, but I do not think, whatever explanation the right hon. Gentleman has to give, he can really defend an appointment of this kind, on the grounds that I have mentioned—the age of the General and the long time that has elapsed since he left the Army, and secondly, perhaps the more important point, that he should be conducting whatever duties he may have to perform in peace time from Brussels, and not with any day-to-day contact with the problems that must be arising in the Department for the rationing of London and the Home Counties in time of war.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

The hon. Member was quite right when he said that I would welcome the opportunity that has been taken of discussing this appointment, which arose from a question that he asked last week and on which there has been considerable Press comment. I appreciate very much the manner in which he has raised the point. He has quite obviously not raised it in order to make party capital or a personal attack, but because he wants an explanation, and he thinks it of considerable public importance. The first thing that we have to consider—because there is a great deal of misapprehension about it—is, what are in fact the peacetime duties of this particular post? The hon. Member will be aware that the country, under the scheme got out by my Department, has been divided into a number of areas in each of which there is a divisional food officer. I need not trouble the House with a description of the rest of the plan, with the local food committees and local officers, who will usually be local authority representatives, and those committees which will usually consist of either consumers or those interested in the food trade in the particular locality. But in each area there will also be a divisional food officer, and in time of war it will be his duty to take charge of that area under either the Board of Trade or a Ministry of Food if it is by then set up. In the London area we have superimposed upon the three divisional food officers who will represent the three areas into which London is divided another post, that occupied by Sir Reginald Ford, the chief divisional officer.

The duties of a divisional officer in peace-time are not very great. When we talk about paying these officers a retaining fee that in fact is what it is. It is not so much a payment for the services that they render in peace-time but payment to ensure that when a war starts they will be able to undertake the whole-time job of divisional officers. Divisional officers, and still less the Chief Divisional Officer in London, have no responsibility for the preparation of plans for the distribution of food supplies in an emergency. The preparation of plans is being undertaken by my Food Defence Department with the assistance, and largely on the advice, of those who are experienced in the various commodities concerned, although, of course, the Divisional Food Officer is called into consultation and actually has to be conversant with the plans as they develop. The ordinary divisional food officer, who will be responsible for his particular area, has in addition, naturally, responsibility for getting into touch with the people who are designated to become food officers in war-time and he, like the other people, is in peace-time carrying on with his ordinary job. It is quite a delusion to think that the divisional food officer or the Chief Divisional Food Officer, has a daily routine to go through or that he has any staff under him at all.

When the hon. Member talked of a staff of 130 I think he was quoting from the flights of fancy of a daily newspaper which described in almost pathetic terms how its representative went into this office with 130 people sitting anxiously, like Sister Anne in the Tower, saying, "When is he coming?" He was the man to whom they all owed authority—this Chief Divisional Food Officer. As a matter of fact, that office was the office of my Food Defence Department, and those 130 people are employed in my Department and Sir Reginald Ford has as much connection with them as the food divisional officer in Glasgow. He has no staff and no responsibility for the preparation of these plans. His duties in peace-time are that he should keep in touch with the plans as they develop, that he should be available for consultation and conference and, of course, that he should be acquainted with the views and the personalities of the three divisional food officers who are under him. Whereas the ordinary divisional food officer will in the course of his duties come into contact with the local food officer and the local food committee and therefore in peace-time must establish some contact with them, in war-time this gentleman will be more in the nature of a co-ordinator between the three divisional officers in London and the three areas in London, and will come little in contact with the local committees. I thought that it would be useful to explain the duties in peace-time and war-time of this gentleman, because there has been a great deal of misapprehension as to what they are.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) interrupted and said that we pay him a salary of £5 a week. This is not so much a payment for services which are being rendered, as—

Mr. E. Smith

It is a lot compared with the treatment of our own unemployed. There is too much of this kind of thing going on.

Mr. Stanley

Compare it with the salary the hon. Member is getting.

Mr. E. Smith

The hon. Member earns his salary as well as anybody else in the House.

Mr. Stanley

If we are going to relate every payment that is made to the treatment of the unemployed, let us do it for all of us. This is a retaining fee, partly for the service he renders now and in anticipation of the services he will render if the emergency arises. In regard to this gentleman's qualifications, I stated that he had a special qualification with respect to transport. He has experience in regard to a form of transport which is unique. He was largely responsible during the War in France for the whole of the transportation of munitions and stores up to the line.

You may find a number of other people who have considerable experience of transport under peace conditions, but Sir Reginald Ford has had the unique experience of transport under war conditions in the bringing of food and materials into place, under risk of heavy fire and under extremely disturbed conditions. The sort of problem which is going to concern the Chief Divisional Food Officer in London, whoever he may be, in war time, is exactly the kind of problem—the distribution and availability of food and the moving of food from the ports up to the outskirts of the different areas—with which Sir Reginald Ford had to deal during the War. The sort of problem that he would have to meet in war time is the sort of problem that he had to meet in the last War—the difficulty of bringing up stores when communications are interrupted by enemy action, and the switching over of lines of supply from one side to another. Therefore, he has an experience which is unique in this country. The hon. Member said that transport has changed since Sir Reginald Ford knew it. The answer it that he has held a post under the Ministry of Transport in connection with the transport services. Therefore, I do not think that he will be found to be out of date.

Then there is the question of age. It is said that this gentleman is nearly 70, and is much too old. That is an argument that will not appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House, because we are well aware of what has been done by a right hon. Gentleman of 70 who has shown in the past few months as much vigour, both physical and mental, as is possessed by any younger man. When I appointed this gentleman I considered he had very special qualifications for the position.

Mr. Bellenger

When was he appointed?

Mr. Stanley

In the Autumn. I had to consider, when I made the appointment, whether he was a good man for the job and what difference to his qualifications for his job was made by the fact that thereafter he elected to take up his residence in Brussels. In view of that fact I knew quite well, if I still continued him in his post, exactly what would be said. I have been in Parliament and in public life a very considerable time, and when I came to the decision to continue this gentleman in his post I could have made the very speeches that have since been made, and I could have made the same comment that has been made in the newspapers. It would have been perfectly easy for me, if Sir Reginald had been willing, to have said: "This makes all the difference, and I am afraid I cannot now have you." By so doing I should have avoided criticism; but merely to avoid criticism is not the highest principle of administration to adopt.

I had to consider, having got a man who was well qualified for the job, whether, apart altogether from gossip or perhaps prejudice, the fact that he was residing in Brussels really did disqualify him. In regard to his peace-time duties, I made certain that his residence in Brussels was no obstacle. He has no staff and has no routine work. His job is that of attending conferences, having consultations and keeping in touch with his food officers, and it is not a difficult matter for him to come over from a country which may have seemed very distant in the days of sailing boats or even steamboats, but which in these days of aeroplanes is really not so far away. The real thing which I had to consider, and here I admit the real consideration arose, was how easy it would be to get him over here if and when the emergency arose?

Mr. George Griffiths

Who pays for his flying fare from and to Brussels?

Mr. Stanley

He gets his expenses paid, as he would if he lived, say, in the West of England or in Scotland, which would be no cheaper than the expense of travelling from Brussels. I am certain that during the time when we are preparing plans for the crisis which hon. Members opposite tell us we must expect at almost any moment, the fact of his temporary residence in Brussels does not disqualify him, and that he is enabled to carry on his job. In regard to the duration of the appointment, about which I have been asked a question, it is terminable by agreement between the two sides on three months' notice at any time.

The hon. Member says that this gentleman may not be too old now, but that when the war comes, if it is a long time ahead, he will then be long past the age for such a job. I can tell the House at once that it has never been in the mind of Sir Reginald Ford or in my mind that this appointment, in view of his age, was for a very long period. I am, however, quite certain that during the months ahead, in the critical time which we have to face, nothing could be worse from the point of view of the administration of our plans than the continual changing of personnel. I am convinced that this gentleman has special qualifications for the job, that he is able to perform his duties in existing circumstances and that in an emergency he would be available for the work which he would be called upon to do.

Mr. Cartland

Before my right hon. Friend made the appointment, when it was in his mind, did he ask Sir Reginald Ford, who I imagine is in receipt of a pension from the War Office, whether he would do these duties in peace time on a voluntary basis, although, naturally, it would be understood that his expenses would be met? Was he asked to forego this retaining fee of £250 during peace time?

Mr. Stanley

He was not asked to, because for a considerable period all food officers have been paid a retaining fee. He was put on the same basis as other divisional officers.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Mander

The right hon. Gentleman has dealt very fully and clearly with the position as he sees it, but none the less I think he has failed to grasp the real objections which are taken to this particular appointment. It is not the individual but the impression which the appointment makes on the mind of the public in relation to the recruiting programme of the Government. I am sincerely anxious to see the voluntary National Service scheme of the Government a success, but this is not the kind of thing which is going to assist them at all. We have had the publication of the National Service booklet and having accomplished that the Government seem to have sat back and felt that they had done a good piece of work. Really nothing has been happening during the last few weeks. It has been disappointing, rather disturbing. One would imagine that there would have been large public meetings pointing out the seriousness of the situation and the urgency of the problem, but as far as I know no big public meeting has been held except the one at which the Minister of Labour was howled down last night at Manchester.

Sir Joseph Nall

He was not howled down.

Mr. Mander

Considerably interrupted. From the broad point of the success of the National Service scheme a little thing like this is going to have a most damaging effect in making people think, perhaps wrongly, that the Government are not serious about it and that they are quite prepared to appoint officers who are going to live abroad. That is the way in which it will strike the ordinary man. He will not think of the many reasons, many excellent reasons no doubt, which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward tonight. I should like to ask him whether we are to consider this as a sample of the kind of appointments the Government are going to make? On this basis, suppose you have a large number of other officers connected with home defence receiving a retaining fee, will it be in order for, say, a dozen or 100 of them to live in a foreign country, to live abroad? I think the Government have set a precedent which it may be impossible to refuse to others.

The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the question put to him by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) when he quoted from an article in the "Evening Standard" in which Sir Reginald Ford said that he was going to consider the question of settling down in Belgium. If he settles down in Belgium or lives there for any considerable period of time he will not only be receiving 250 guineas a year as a retaining fee, he will not only be receiving his Imperial Airways expenses, if he goes by that route to Belgium and back, but he will not be liable to pay British Income Tax or Surtax—he will avoid that. If that is the position it will be in the minds of the public a scandal that a person holding an important position in our defence system should be apparently so little interested that the Government think it unnecessary to insist on his living here. I was not clear on one point. Although I think the right hon. Gentleman meant that the fee of 250 guineas is payable now, in peace time, in war time, if he were fully employed, he would still not receive more than 250 guineas. Is that correct?

Mr. Stanley

No, it would be more than that in war time.

Mr. Mander

That makes it all the more extraordinary. What point is there in paying him a retaining fees if he is going to be well paid when he starts doing a job of work over here? It is difficult to see that he is such an extraordinary person that his services at all costs must be retained and that he might go into a still more remote portion of the world, dig himself in, and not be available for any of the services for which he is destined. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised in the national interest to think this matter over and consider the effect on public opinion. I think he would be wise to terminate this arrangement, or at any rate to arrange that Sir Reginald Ford should live over here. I do not know whether he was invited to live over here when the appointment was made, and refused. We have not had information on that point.

Mr. Stanley

I made it quite clear that he elected to live in Belgium after his appointment.

Mr. Mander

It seems that Sir Reginald Ford decided, after the appointment was made, that he would live in Belgium and that no successful appeal was made to him to remain in this country. I am making an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider what has been said and realise that not only in front of him but behind him there are many people who cannot understand the meaning of this arrangement. I am sure the public will not understand it, and I hope he will bring it to an end as soon as he can.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

I have been rather concerned about the way the discussion has gone, and more perturbed than ever by the attitude adopted by the President of the Board of Trade. I am glad that he appreciated the manner and the spirit in which my hon. Friend raised this question, and I want to assure him that in whatever I say I do not seek in any way to cast any reflection on the personal capacity of Sir Reginald Ford, or upon the manner in which the staff of the Food Defence Council have done their job. I can speak from great personal experience because I have been, so to speak, under the net of the Food Defence plans for three years—not three months—and out of all the services with which I have come into contact during the last three years in the preparation for any outbreak of hostilities none has been better forward or better served than the Food Defence Plans Department. It does not matter to what party we belong, when we find good work being done we should say so. But on this particular appointment made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am simply astonished to learn, after three years, that it has been made, and I beg the President of the Board of Trade to think over what has been said to-night in relation to what he and his Department are asking of other people.

Reference has been made to the general National Service Scheme on a voluntary basis. I am not thinking of that, although it is vital. I am thinking of the services of his Food Defence Department. He rightly said that they are having a great deal of valuable help, detailed, continuous help, from the leaders of trade. The President of the Board of Trade does not pay them. He does not pay even their expenses. A large number of leaders of industry, many of them, of course, belonging to the party opposite, have given their time, their staff and their brains to this subject for nearly three years. I pay my tribute to them for their public service. To tell them, at the end of nearly three years, that three months ago you appointed a retired Army officer, of the rank of General, in receipt of a pension well over £1,000 a year, and that it is necessary, in order to retain his good offices, to pay him an annual fee on top of his pension in order to keep him, a retired officer, free to serve the country in time of war, is a most extraordinary situation.

Moreover, what I have said about the leaders of industry who have been helping the President of the Board of Trade in this Department does not finish with their personal services. It must be remembered that what those people in industry are doing with the Food Defence Plans Department would have the direct result of their seconding, in time of war, their full-time senior officials. The right hon. Gentleman knows, or ought to know, that his very excellent chief, Sir Henry French, has a whole list of people already seconded from all kinds of commodity trades, whom the particular firms, trade associations and trade organisations, are willing to release full time to the Government when war breaks out. What is the retaining fee paid either to the firms or the individuals? I should be glad to hear an answer to that. Is there any retaining fee? As far as I know, not a penny. What is the reason for this particular retaining fee? I cannot for the life of me understand how the President of the Board of Trade thinks he can justify this retaining fee either in logic or in justice.

Mr. Broad

It is the distribution of the spoils of office.

Mr. Alexander

When some of us have to go to people in the employ of our organisations and ask them whether they will consent to be full-time seconded officers to the Government in war time, and persuade them to promise that, we are not asked to offer them a retaining fee. We ask them to serve their country. Surely, we ought not to have a lower standard than that when dealing with a retired officer having a pension of over £1,000 a year. That is the case which I put to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is not an isolated case. When my hon.

Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) interrupted once or twice during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman departed from the usual courteous style which he adopts in replying to such interruptions from my hon. Friends. I beg him to consider whether the reference he made to my hon. Friend was quite kind or quite apposite to the case.

Mr. E. Smith

It will do me good; it has reminded me of the people to whom I belong.

Mr. Alexander

I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see that the two cases are entirely different.

Mr. Stanley

Certainly, I did not intend to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), but although I appreciate the argument which the right hon. Gentleman is making as to whether we ought to pay this gentleman 250 guineas a year or whether divisional food officers should have been paid retaining fees, I do not think the argument is served by comparing these sums with the money which we pay to the unemployed. For that reason, I suggested that if we are going to make any comparison it should not be with the unemployed, but with ourselves.

Mr. Alexander

The reply I was going to make to the right hon. Gentleman was that if we make a comparison with ourselves, certainly on this side of the House hon. Members are doing a job; they are not abroad, but are dealing with their daily duties in the House of Commons, always on tap. They are doing their duties in their constituencies; and they are paying very heavy expenses out of their salary. The gentleman in question, who is unemployed from one point of view, is not in London; he has a very nice pension; he is living abroad, and he comes over only when he is urgently requested to do so, and then at the first-class rate of the flying services. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's case has not been very good on that point.

I do not think this is the spirit in which we ought to continue our national service for our country. I do not think that any of those—I think I might call them friends of mine, although they are in opposite businesses and in another political party—whom I have continuously met during the last three years in regard to services to the Food Defence Plans Department, ought to have put before them the kind of spirit that is revealed in this particular appointment. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade does not really believe that this particular appointment is indispensable. There are other people who have considerable qualifications with regard to transport and who have thought much about transport, particularly communications in the London area and the communications behind London, and know a great deal about the subject. To say to people outside that we want them to serve the country and to make it safe, and then to appoint pensioned Army officers, allow them to be out of the country, and give them a retaining fee and first-class expenses every time they come back, is completely wrong. I am anxious to continue the voluntary spirit for the national good, but if it is to be continued, then let us have it all round.

10.3 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall

I do not directly associate myself with the motives or arguments advanced by those who initiated the Debate, nor do I differ from the reasons which my right hon. Friend has given in regard to this appointment; but I think the matter goes further and that there are other questions which ought to be in the minds of Ministers when they make appointments of this sort. I happen to sit on certain committees connected with these matters, and different Departments have urged the appointment of full-time officers for certain appointments. When one considers the circumstances of this particular appointment, one must have regard to the effect which these things have on the public mind at a time when citizens are being asked voluntarily to serve in different capacities.

I do not know anything about Sir Reginald Ford's qualifications. It may be that my right hon. Friend is right when he says that Sir Reginald Ford had experience of transport during the last War of such a nature as to render his advice invaluable in any emergency which might arise, but it is ludicrous to suppose that he is the only person available. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport must know more than a dozen persons with War experience and present-day civil ex- perience of transport who are far more qualified to do this job, and who would be only too glad to give their services and advice without any retaining fee and without any pension. But when we come to the further consideration of what the effect of this must be on public opinion, I think my right hon. Friend ought to reconsider the matter. It is well known that many gallant officers who have served their country, when they retire choose, for their own reasons, to live abroad. It is well known that being domiciled abroad they save considerably on British taxation and it really is not decent to pay a further retaining fee to somebody who is availing himself of that privilege, who is living abroad and is relieving himself of some part of the taxation to which he would be liable if he lived here.

If it is necessary to retain someone who can give advice in these matters, that person, at least, ought to be domiciled in this country. It is no part of our business to say to an individual "You must come here because we want you here." The individual is entitled to live where he pleases, but if, as is the case, a number of offices must be filled in skeleton and if advice must be sought from time to time for the purpose of perfecting schemes which may have to be put into operation at short notice, at least those individuals ought to be here on the spot, and they ought not to be suspect in public opinion on this matter of taxation. Without unduly criticising the particular circumstances of this case, I hope that my right hon. Friend will review this matter and that the other Departments concerned will take note of what has been said, and in filling these vacancies where they exist will not be prone to pay retaining fes to anybody at all. I hope they will explore fully, which they have not yet done, the possibilities of the tremendous reservoir of capacity and ability which can be drawn upon for voluntary service and which if properly used would be much more efficient in the public interest. This is only one of these things which has come up, and I do hope that not only my right hon. Friend in this matter of the food supply will take note of what has been said, but that the Ministry of Transport and some other Departments will have regard to this matter and will do what they have been advised from many quarters to do, and that is to appoint immediately part-time officers to these emergency positions, so that we shall not have to sit here again listening to criticisms of the kind we have heard to-night.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Thurtle

I wish to add my voice to the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman on the ground of public interest to reconsider this matter. He said that hon. Members on this side had not spoken from any party point of view, but I can assure him of this—that, from the party point of view, there is nothing we would like better than to see him persist in this appointment under present conditions. It is really a gorgeous case from the point of view of party propaganda. Here is a retired General with a pension of over £1,000 a year, holding a very responsible position in connection with food supplies in war time and living over in Brussels and when he feels under the necessity of coming here he is paid first-class fare on the air service. That is really a gorgeous point to make if we wanted to attack the Government upon it, but I do not think we are looking at it from that point of view. We are looking at it more from the point of view of public confidence. There is a great lack of public confidence in the measures which the Government are supposed to be taking to safeguard national interests in times of emergency and this question of food supplies, particularly as far as London is concerned, is one of the most important. When a fact like this comes out it makes the people of London think that the whole thing is a farce. If you talk to people on buses and in the streets about this sort of thing they make all sorts of facetious and cynical comments because they do not think that the Government can be earnest if they allow a man holding such a responsible position to live "as far away as Brussels is." From the point of view of the vital necessity of restoring public confidence and from the point of view of the welfare of his own Government, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again and to find some reasonable way of terminating this appointment at the earliest possible moment.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Broad

I feel that something ought to be said on the point of the age of this gentleman. Very few people, if any, over 70 years of age are capable of undertaking the immense strain which would be imposed upon the holder of such an office as this if war should come. Carrying on with this job would involve a 24-hour day. I know that people talk about past war service, but if you have an old charger which has carried you through many battles in the past, and if, when he is past his prime, you take one more chance with him, your horse may go down at the knees and you may break your neck. That, I am afraid, will be the position as far as such a man is concerned. Many of us who sit on these benches have felt it to be our duty to join county committees with regard to national service. We have appealed to people to do various kinds of work and some of those people who already have to work very hard, are joining voluntarily in that service. One of the most important jobs in the event of war would be demolition and clearance where buildings have fallen and only men who are accustomed to that work can do it properly. These men know how to put up sheer legs and do work of that kind and we are asking these men to train squads for such jobs in case of emergency. There is no proposition that they should be paid retaining fees, but because this gentleman, forsooth, is one of the gentleman class, he is to be paid £250 a year as a retaining fee.

If that is to be the policy, I say that I should be more concerned about going on the platform and denouncing the Government on this account, than about urging people to join for national defence service in such circumstances. It does seem to be the case that those who are already well placed, if there is anything to be done will not do it unless they get something out of it and if that is the position, how are we to ask other people to give their service? There are those of us who have joined in national service and are doing our best to secure the enlistment of others in the national service and cases like this will put us in a very equivocal position. That is why I feel so indignant about it. I hope the Minister will see whether it is not possible to find a younger man, a man who is in personal contact with transport in this country, and not a man who is living miles away from this country. I hope that he will be able to find a man who is fit to undertake this task and who will not, if war should come, break down under the task and leave us in the lurch. I hope the Minister will realise that feeling all round the House and undertake to reconsider this matter and make a more suitable appointment of some patriotic gentleman who is prepared to pledge his services without a retaining fee.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I am sorry the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) made use of some of the phrases of which he did make use, because I think that, with that exception, the Debate which has taken place, and which was started by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), has been entirely removed from any question of either party or person. I hope I may take it that neither from any of the speakers nor in any quarter of the House is anything felt against the gentleman who has been given this appointment. I am sure hon. Members will permit me to say that if there is anything wrong with either the principle, or the appointment, or the salary, or whatever it is, the responsibility is mine for offering the job to this gentleman and for asking him to stay on the job, and not his for accepting it, and that responsibility I am prepared to bear. Hon. Members will not, I am sure, expect me to say anything more to-night, but I have been deeply impressed by some of the speeches that have been made, by the spirit in which they have been made, and by the fears, quite unconnected with this appointment, which hon. Members obviously feel, and I can only say that I will consider the speeches in the same spirit as that in which the speeches were made.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Ten o' Clock.